Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[Richy_T]

well, i like PT today. he may have just killed SWSF.

But these questions should have been being asked when it was proposed and that they weren't is causing the network to be damaged today (assuming they wouldn't have found a different excuse) so no free pass from me.

 

[solex]

The solution is simple. Just hard-fork SW with the bump to 2MB.
The problem for Core is that they no longer care about what the block limit increase is i.e. 1.01MB is as bad as 101MB. They have simply created so much ill will with the 8-month campaign of censorship, FUD and tortured logic, they believe they cannot remain the reference client if a HF occurs.

 

[cypherdoc]

@Richy_T

i get that you think he is just trouble all around and i tend to agree. but these are complex issues and proposals that just go to prove to you that the few core devs who put this together, pwuille, Lambrozzo, Lau, can't think of everything and that they are indeed fallible. so if PT helps us discover a potential vulnerability today that helps us do the right thing, then i give him kudos. i'm all about the right ideas no matter who they come from and when.
[doublepost=1454099326][/doublepost]
cypherdoc[12:28 PM]i think we just got a checkmate on SWSF. Classic 2MB HF it is!!!!

 

[Richy_T]

Cypher, my main issue is that the whole segwit thing has been agenda driven which has meant that many things have been glossed over and downplayed. Of course P, L&L are fallible, *everyone* is and any dev worth a damn acknowledges that and employs strategies to deal with it. And their project manager, and the entity they are working for.

Core (its leaders, anyway) likes to throw out accusations of politicism but they have been running political for years now and this is a damning example. They need to get in their clown car and go home.

Edit: I realize I'm getting my annoyance at Core and at PT himself a bit crossed here. But I think the point stands. It's good that PT found this out but these questions should have been being asked from the start. When you repurpose something that worked differently before, you always have to consider the side-effects.
[doublepost=1454100219][/doublepost]I don't see this being discussed on /r/btc yet?

 

[awemany]

The solution is simple. Just hard-fork SW with the bump to 2MB.
The problem for Core is that they no longer care about what the block limit increase is i.e. 1.01MB is as bad as 101MB. They have simply created so much ill will with the 8-month campaign of censorship, FUD and tortured logic, that they believe that they cannot remain the reference client if a HF occurs.

That, or they are afraid of how the price will finally raise significantly and people will get cheerful again and Bitcoin will actually work well again and how that will then drive them out of the market completely, and justified. If and when a hard fork under a saner team gets implemented.

 

[cypherdoc]

@Richy_T

well, you're just preaching to the choir here. i and just about everyone else in here have been singing your tune for years now.

i'm just excited that this vulnerability coming from PT should put a nail in the coffin of SWSF for now allowing us to quickly move forward with the Classic HF.

 

[awemany]

If an economic majority of users can not figure a way out of this, I'll have to reconsider my faith in a fair number of things, including the ability of a group of individuals to be able to determine their own path from within the confines of a larger society. Basically my faith in individualism would be shaken. Right now I still can not believe this would happen and believe users will find a way, but we are getting close to the edge.

Indeed. I have a similar opinion on this and just posted this on reddit:

 

[Impulse]

Don't bet on it Cypher, they'll continue to doggedly fight a 2mb HF.

@Richy_T

well, you're just preaching to the choir here. i and just about everyone else in here have been singing your tune for years now.

i'm just excited that this vulnerability coming from PT should put a nail in the coffin of SWSF for now allowing us to quickly move forward with the Classic HF.

Don't bet on it Cypher, they'll continue to doggedly fight a 2mb HF. Does this mean that Todd will retract his support for the "roadmap"?

 

[cypherdoc]

@Impulse

cypherdoc
1:05 PM]btw, no BS bonuses for Peter Todd in 2016!!

 

[AdrianX]

The solution is simple. Just hard-fork SW with the bump to 2MB.
The problem for Core is that they no longer care about what the block limit increase is i.e. 1.01MB is as bad as 101MB. They have simply created so much ill will with the 8-month campaign of censorship, FUD and tortured logic, that they believe that they cannot remain the reference client if a HF occurs.

I now see Blockstream Core are not acting in good faith.

It's about control. I was thinking why the opposition to just forking to 2MB when 2-4-8 was OK.

And the reason is if you allow old nodes to mine bigger blocks by just patch and increase max block size, then you have no stick to force Miners to implement your Soft Fork code.

If Core can link their increase in capacity in a bundle of code changes they can keep control of the Soft Fork road-map. If the network capacity increases and its a simple patch their control, importance and influence is undermined.

I wouldn't be surprised @cypherdoc if Adam is ignoring you because they will announce a hard fork to 2 or 4MB when it comes time to implement SW. The catch will be old nodes wont be able to just patch the max block size increase. they'll have to either mine 1MB blocks or upgrade to 0.13+ to mine the 1 or 4MB blocks.

and then Big block proponents will become the enemy of Bitcoin growth.

 

[sickpig]

Maxwell doesn't understand that the value created by the limited supply is inelastic because the function it's serve (store of value) is price-indenpendent, whereas the value created by the limited blocksize is extremely elastic because the function it serves (transfer of value) is hugely price sensitive.

The store of value function need scarcity to create the max value, the transfer of value function need abundance to create the max value.

Blocksize limit will only drive out the demand and destroy value. He is a freaking moron.

I decided to bump this post every once in a while. @BldSwtTrs really hits the nail on the head with this one. Bold is mine.

 

[AdrianX]

@Impulse PT has expressed very clearly how bitcoin works. He doesn't believe its Gmax and Adam that are the enlightened minority that lead the ignorant mob.

I don't agree with him an lots of things but generally he is professional, but it's his code of conduct that keeps him out of the corporate Core circle.

 

[Justus Ranvier]

@sickpig Money is a ledger, and there are two basic properties a ledger need to be monetarily useful:

• Accurate
• Modifiable

Accuracy is reduced by:

• Changing the interpretation of scripts such that coins which have already been created are redeemable under different rules than their creator specified
• Issuing new currency units.

In the case of the last one, Bitcoin's introduction included an explicitly defined amount of predictable inaccuracy which drops off exponentially over time. This is unavoidable because it's not possible to bring a new currency into existence without issuing it.

A block size limit directly harms Bitcoin's monetary usefulness, because a ledger that you can't edit isn't fit for purpose. This is a completely avoidable problem and so the limit should be removed unless our goal is to intentionally harm Bitcoin's monetary value.

 

[YarkoL]

I decided to bump this post every once in a while. @BldSwtTrs really hits the nail on the head with this one. Bold is mine.

@sickpig where does that come from? Link?

 

[albin]

Maxwell doesn't understand that the value created by the limited supply is inelastic because the function it's serve (store of value) is price-indenpendent, whereas the value created by the limited blocksize is extremely elastic because the function it serves (transfer of value) is hugely price sensitive.

They routinely conflate a quantity approaching zero with actual zero to justify the crackpot conclusion.

They are literally saying that some f(x) = x * (1/x) approaches zero as x increases without bound, because (1/x) "is" zero for large x.

There was a rambling incoherent "refutation" of Peter R's fee market ideas on reddit not too long ago that almost entirely hung its hat on this concept.

 

[chriswilmer]

So. I am going to close my eyes and hope for the best. When should I open them? 1 week? 1 month?

 

[sickpig]

@sickpig where does that come from? Link?

just click on the arrow next to username in the quote block header:

https://bitco.in/forum/goto/post?id=9984#post-9984

 

[Peter R]

So. I am going to close my eyes and hope for the best. When should I open them? 1 week? 1 month?

You know you won't be able to keep yourself from peeking

 

[Inca]

So. I am going to close my eyes and hope for the best. When should I open them? 1 week? 1 month?

Yep. It's a bit scary. If there is a crash I will open a fairly large leveraged long position. Because one way or another the market will work through this and I predict another round of halving fever soon enough.

 

[Norway]

1 tiny megabyte. Jeeezzz... Blockstream can burn in hell.
EDIT: And 80k lines of new code in the latest release from Corestream: Bloatware!
EDIT2: Cheeeers!!!